Topic: Do you believe in ICO Ratings? - page 91. (Read 6918 times)
I do not believe it's better to double-check everything yourself, it's your money! To make it is not difficult enough to read about the team whether they are real people, whether there is a working product. If you have any doubts, it's better not to take risks
Of course, Before taking part in any ICO, I look at these websites and their ratings. I for example, compare the ratings of 5-7 sources. I dont believe that all sources can be bought, I think that teams are working on the information they put on their website. Why should they risk their reputation?
In my opinion, sometimes these assessments are so faithful and you can listen to their opinion, and sometimes it's just fake and purchased ratings that just pirate these projects.
As the new comer, first you need improve your knowledge. Study the whitepapers of good ico's which came to the market and bad ico's. Find out the differences. Any good ico has a great, valuable concept. Solid project team should be there. ICO should have a huge community support. I choose AMLT because it fulfill all those things in a great way. I had the feeling that, it will have a bright future. Check & take your own decision.
I think the ratings are needed for each project, but I saw a lot of projects with ratings of 5/5 that did not even earn soft cap. It turns out that they do not always reflect the real state of affairs.
I believe that ICO way of raising funds will become a significant concept in developing Blockchain and distributed business concepts as well as the industry. For the community to grow, the need for strategic investment and careful selection process becomes crucial.
I think the ratings are needed for each project, but I saw a lot of projects with ratings of 5/5 that did not even earn soft cap. It turns out that they do not always reflect the real state of affairs.
Not really that much. ICO ratings can somehow be swayed by just one existing opinion. There are projects with lesser ratings but turned out to be one of the most successful projects ever. The good thing is that, it will give you insight about ICO's that you're about to join.
ICO Rating sites sound like a centralized system.
It’s not only centralised they are the biggest threat to crypto space now every person starting their own ICO Rating sites and displaying rank My based on the money they get from projects . So now a days we can’t believe any ico sites . Based on previous experience happened to me. I see many Websites that provide ratings for ongoing ICOs or for the future. Examples such as the ICObench.com Website, ICOrating.com and others.
Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
ICO ratings are sometimes opposite to the actual value and situation of the project. Sometimes, they are confusing because when you look at the other ico rating site, it is not there. I still depend on the roadmap and whitepaper of the IcO because there I will find the substantial information about the IcO.
I see many Websites that provide ratings for ongoing ICOs or for the future. Examples such as the ICObench.com Website, ICOrating.com and others.
Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
Of the entire set of outgoing every day ICO is very difficult to choose perverse. Sites are just a little help in this, but if you do not like the project, even if the rating is for example 4/5, then it's better not to invest! Sites can also be tempted by big money, remember that! Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
Anyone can create an ICO rating website and share his ratings on a project, this doesn't necessarily mean the project is good or rated accurately, ICO rating websites are useful just to get perspective of the project and see what people are saying, but really you should have your markers yo look for in a project and follow them when making your research.
I see many Websites that provide ratings for ongoing ICOs or for the future. Examples such as the ICObench.com Website, ICOrating.com and others.
Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
have read the topic and decided to write an opinion. disclaimer - this is not an advertisement, only my opinion. is there a website rating icodrops.com. the founders put a rating only on the basis of factual information. they also show in which projects they invest their own money and keep statistics of projects that they have marked very well. I believe in their analysis and trust their opinion. Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
At first I found this site very good looking and I liked the disclaimer on the front page of icodrops: "ICO Drops does not provide investment advice". But then I started to look for the ICOs which I'm interested in right now because I've earned their tokens in sig campaigns previously. They are: Docademic (MTC) and TV-TWO (TTV). Unfortunately there is no information about those tokens on icodrops while they are fully covered on ICObench.com from the OP. So, it appears that ICObench.com is more suitable for my needs right now.
I think that you should not rely on the opinions of such sites. The rating there is built on the opinion of the majority of users. But I'm sure only a small part of these users conduct a detailed analysis of ICO.
We can trust them but not 100%. Atleast you need do your own research before trust that the ICO are LEGIT. But it's good for newbies which want to invest their money in ICO and don't know anything about it.
I also make my own research aside from just depending on the ICO ratings. Each ICO rating website has their own reviews per ICO so its better to look on the different ICO rating website than just rely on a single ICO rating site and compare which has almost the same review regarding a certain ICO's (team, product, whitepaper etc)
I prefer not to believe such sites. Not once did they give high marks to the projects, but the projects turned out to be mean. I myself am guilty that at that moment I believed these sites. more I do not do so.
If the rzting is well explained (team, project...),why not?
I don't think that any ICO Rating website is reliable. They are taking money from projects to get them listed. More you pay, better you get shown. It's all about the money you pay to them, if you have 5 ETH to spare, just write some shit about blockchain industry problems, offer some shit solutions to these problems, pay 5ETH to ICORating and boom, you're listed as a top coin.
This is probably the case with most ICO rating sites
but unless they paid all such websites, I think it's worth considering the different options on the different sites.
I’m a modern and successful person, therefore I think that using ICOs is a good investment in my future. I use ICO Vireo. In my opinion, this project is very safe and promising
I think it depends. But if almost all ICO tracking sites give a particular ICO positive reviews, then it's worth looking into.
Jump to: